Friday, September 18, 2015

The
‘SJW’s talk a lot about racial and gender privilege; economic privilege, not so much. I wondered why. Then I noticed
that SJW, for ‘Social Justice Worrier’, is an anagram of WSJ, for ‘Wall Street
Journal’. Is this a sign of divide-and-conquer, or am I reading too much into
this?

BJ:

I’d
have to say that the SJWs talk an awful lot about economic privilege also.WSJs these days are so deluded that they don’t
believe ANY privilege exists.Dinesh D’Souza
talks about “The End of Racism” and so forth.So maybe WSJs and SJWs really are opposites of each other, at least in
terms of what they CLAIM they believe.

NH:

You’re
right about the WSJ. The SJWs do mention class privilege, but long after gender
and race privilege; a matter of emphasis. Also lots of SJWs are trust-fund
babies.

I
worry about SJW, but mostly as the latest folly of the youth. I think that SJW
is like Objectivism; a mental flu mostly infecting undergraduates, curable by
critical thinking. They are both closed systems of moral judgement,
structurally favoring fellow cultists. Both preach stultifying dogma in raucous
shibboleths. Both claim a rational maturity that neither possesses.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

“Grand Old Party” for the
Republicans is a misnomer, for theirs is the younger of the two parties. The
Democrats don’t mention this because neither Democratic nor Republican parties
like to dwell upon their pasts. The Democratic party doesn’t like to remind its
base that it used to support slavery; and the Republican party doesn’t like to
remind its base that it used to oppose
slavery.

The $20 bill has a
picture of Andrew Jackson, who is now an embarrassment for the Democratic
party. The $5 bill has a picture of Abraham Lincoln, who is now an
embarrassment for the Republican party. Perhaps the two parties should arrange
an exchange.

Why not? They’ve
exchanged bases and territories. The Republicans used to represent pragmatic
business-friendly race-rights Northeastern and Western urbanites; and the
Democrats represented populist racist Southern farmers. After about a century
and a half, these roles have reversed.

And how are we to know
that in another century and a half, they won’t reverse again?